SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, good afternoon, everybody. Bonjour, tout le monde. Foreign Minister Joly, Mélanie, as always, I’m delighted to welcome you back to the State Department, to the United States, and it is a great pleasure to continue our ongoing collaboration on so many issues that join our countries together. As is fitting for such a close […]
I chose to write the topic because Blinken admits that US directly benefits from blowing up the pipeline creating a clear motive to do so. In fact, nobody has been able to come up with a credible motive for anybody but US to do this. Keep on coping with the fact that US fucked Europe over. These are the shared values you cherish so much on display there.
In short, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Blinken plainly stated that US based LNG companies are the biggest benefactors of the pipelines being blown up.
I have not stated any rumors, speculations, or misinformation here. What I stated is that US is the only country with a clear motive and that Blinken confirmed this. Nobody has stated any coherent motives for other countries to destroy this infrastructure. You’re no different from a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
That is not what Blinken said at all. You’re cherry picking pieces of his speech and then putting them together in creative and highly speculative ways. The US is temporarily supplying LNG to our allies so Europe doesn’t freeze come winter. And the portion where he talks about it being an opportunity never mentions LNG at all. Rather, it discusses getting off dependency on Russian fossil fuels. The conclusion you’ve produced is a Frankenstein’s monster of cherry picked quotes and bad faith interpretation.
You’re no different from a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
You’re literally on here hawking conspiracy theories from a creative interpretation of a speech. Typical conspiracy theorist tactic: find a text and mangle it until it means what you want. So pot meet kettle.
That is not what Blinken said at all. You’re cherry picking pieces of his speech and then putting them together in creative and highly speculative ways.
I gave a literal quote from Blinken where he says that this is a huge opportunity for US based LNG suppliers. Nowhere did he say anything about it being temporary. That’s just you making things up.
You’re literally on here hawking conspiracy theories from a creative interpretation of a speech. Typical conspiracy theorist tactic: find a text and mangle it until it means what you want. So pot meet kettle.
I’m not hawking any conspiracy theories here. I’m simply pointing out that US has a clear motive while nobody else does.
Only a handful of countries have the means to do this, and claiming that it’s more likely that Russia blew up their own pipeline for no reason as opposed to US having done it with a clear reason is precisely the conspiracy theorist tactic one would use. The fact that anybody can even say that with a straight face is absolutely surreal.
US is a terrorist state with a long history of doing precisely these kinds of attacks. You live in a terrorist state buddy. Own it.
No, there are two separate quotes that you keep insisting are related when they aren’t. One is that the US is supplying LNG to make up for Russia cutting off supplies to Europe. The other is that the current situation provides an opportunity to transition from dependence on Russian fossil fuel to renewables. They aren’t even in adjacent parts of the speech, given that multiple speakers are rotating.
And so we’ve significantly increased our production as well as making available to Europe liquefied natural gas. And we’re now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe to help compensate for any gas or oil that it’s losing as a result of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
This is a direct quote stating that US is now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe. Furthermore, it’s not like there isn’t prior context here of US trying to get Europe to switch to using US LNG instead of Russian pipeline gas.
Meanwhile, even the clean energy part of the speech clearly talks about opportunities for US to sell things to Europe:
One way to do that is through the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides more than $368 billion for clean energy technologies like electric vehicles and battery components that are manufactured in North America. It’s the biggest, most ambitious climate investment in the history of our country; it offers a chance for us to deepen our economic integration and expand inclusive economic opportunity for our people.
Stop trying to pretend that tying Europe to American LNG and manufacturing isn’t directly benefiting America at the expense of Europe.
This is a direct quote stating that US is now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe.
Which has little to do with your headline “Blinken calls Nord Stream sabotage a tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come.” The association between those two portions of the speech is a complete fabrication.
…it offers a chance for us to deepen our economic integration and expand inclusive economic opportunity for our people.
That paragraph is pretty clear. The Inflation Reduction Act is an investment that will benefit both sides of the Atlantic. The key part is “deepen our [Europe’s and North America’s] economic integration” to provide “economic opportunity” in both regions. This is in contrast to how the US has historically approached climate issues, constantly falling short of meaningful actions.
Which has little to do with your headline “Blinken calls Nord Stream sabotage a tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come.” The association between those two portions of the speech is a complete fabrication.
The association between those two points is pretty direct actually given that he literally lists what these opportunities are.
That paragraph is pretty clear. The Inflation Reduction Act is an investment that will benefit both sides of the Atlantic.
No, it benefits the US because it will be selling gas and products to Europe. It completely fucks Europe because it’s becoming deinudstrialized as a result:
Once again, since your reading comprehension is evidently very poor, I’m saying that US is the one country with a clear motive, means, and history of doing such things. You absolutely can debate motives without absolute proof. That’s literally how every criminal investigation starts, by identifying a motive. You’re so bad at this. 😂
I chose to write the topic because Blinken admits that US directly benefits from blowing up the pipeline creating a clear motive to do so. In fact, nobody has been able to come up with a credible motive for anybody but US to do this. Keep on coping with the fact that US fucked Europe over. These are the shared values you cherish so much on display there.
deleted by creator
In short, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Blinken plainly stated that US based LNG companies are the biggest benefactors of the pipelines being blown up.
I have not stated any rumors, speculations, or misinformation here. What I stated is that US is the only country with a clear motive and that Blinken confirmed this. Nobody has stated any coherent motives for other countries to destroy this infrastructure. You’re no different from a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
Keep coping.
That is not what Blinken said at all. You’re cherry picking pieces of his speech and then putting them together in creative and highly speculative ways. The US is temporarily supplying LNG to our allies so Europe doesn’t freeze come winter. And the portion where he talks about it being an opportunity never mentions LNG at all. Rather, it discusses getting off dependency on Russian fossil fuels. The conclusion you’ve produced is a Frankenstein’s monster of cherry picked quotes and bad faith interpretation.
You’re literally on here hawking conspiracy theories from a creative interpretation of a speech. Typical conspiracy theorist tactic: find a text and mangle it until it means what you want. So pot meet kettle.
I gave a literal quote from Blinken where he says that this is a huge opportunity for US based LNG suppliers. Nowhere did he say anything about it being temporary. That’s just you making things up.
I’m not hawking any conspiracy theories here. I’m simply pointing out that US has a clear motive while nobody else does.
Only a handful of countries have the means to do this, and claiming that it’s more likely that Russia blew up their own pipeline for no reason as opposed to US having done it with a clear reason is precisely the conspiracy theorist tactic one would use. The fact that anybody can even say that with a straight face is absolutely surreal.
US is a terrorist state with a long history of doing precisely these kinds of attacks. You live in a terrorist state buddy. Own it.
No, there are two separate quotes that you keep insisting are related when they aren’t. One is that the US is supplying LNG to make up for Russia cutting off supplies to Europe. The other is that the current situation provides an opportunity to transition from dependence on Russian fossil fuel to renewables. They aren’t even in adjacent parts of the speech, given that multiple speakers are rotating.
This is a direct quote stating that US is now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe. Furthermore, it’s not like there isn’t prior context here of US trying to get Europe to switch to using US LNG instead of Russian pipeline gas.
Meanwhile, even the clean energy part of the speech clearly talks about opportunities for US to sell things to Europe:
Stop trying to pretend that tying Europe to American LNG and manufacturing isn’t directly benefiting America at the expense of Europe.
Which has little to do with your headline “Blinken calls Nord Stream sabotage a tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come.” The association between those two portions of the speech is a complete fabrication.
That paragraph is pretty clear. The Inflation Reduction Act is an investment that will benefit both sides of the Atlantic. The key part is “deepen our [Europe’s and North America’s] economic integration” to provide “economic opportunity” in both regions. This is in contrast to how the US has historically approached climate issues, constantly falling short of meaningful actions.
The association between those two points is pretty direct actually given that he literally lists what these opportunities are.
No, it benefits the US because it will be selling gas and products to Europe. It completely fucks Europe because it’s becoming deinudstrialized as a result:
deleted by creator
Once again, since your reading comprehension is evidently very poor, I’m saying that US is the one country with a clear motive, means, and history of doing such things. You absolutely can debate motives without absolute proof. That’s literally how every criminal investigation starts, by identifying a motive. You’re so bad at this. 😂
deleted by creator